Suresh Kumar Shukla (Sharma) v. Union Of India

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1883 of 2021

1. Suresh Kumar Shukla (Sharma) S/o Late R.K. Shukla Aged About 65 Years R/o MIG 55, Sec. 4, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Sadhana Shukla W/o Suresh Kumar Shukla( Sharma) Aged About 58 Years R/o MIG 55, Sec. 4, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Central Registrar, Ministry Of Agricultural And Farmers Welfare Department Of Agricultural Co-Operative And Farmers Welfare, Office Of The Central Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi

2. Commissioner, Office Of The Central Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, Ministry Of Agricultural and Farmers Welfare Department Of Agricultural CoOperative And Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. Registrar, Adarsh Credit Co- Operative Society Ltd. Registration No. MSCS/CR/269/2008 Central Office, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. H.S.Patel, Liquidator, Adarsh Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. 14, Vidya Colony, Usmanpur, Ahmedabad-380013, Gujrat.

---- Respondents For petitioners - Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocate.

For respondents No.1 & 2- Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 12/04/2021 Heard.

1.

The limited grievance that the petitioners have raised in this case is that the petitioners had made certain deposits in the respondent No.3 Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. under various schemes and heads, however, subsequently the respondent No.3 establishment has been closed and at the instance of respondent No.1 a Liquidator was also appointed i.e. respondent No.4. 2.

The counsel for the petitioners submits that meanwhile the deposits of other creditors were released, however, the deposits made by the petitioners were not released. The petitioners make a limited prayer that let the respondents No.1&4

take a decision on the claim application of the petitioners seeking for release of the amount lying deposited with the respondent No.3. 3.

The limited request made by the petitioners is not opposed by the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

4.

Accordingly, the respondents No.1&4 are directed to take a decision on the application which the petitioners have filed seeking for release of the amount which is lying with the respondent No.3 which was deposited by the petitioners under different schemes and heads. It is expected that the authorities would take a decision at the earliest preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order purely in accordance with rules and guidelines governing the field.

5.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri